In a Blurry World, Ownership Is Yesterday’s News

IN BLURRY WORLD, OWNERSHIP IS YESTERDAY'S NEWS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Richard Silkos]
[Commentary] "It is hard to find any public policy question that feels less relevant by the minute than whether one person or company should be permitted to own television stations and newspapers in the same market." Silkos argues that media crossownership bans adopted in 1975 are unnecessary in the quickly changing media landscape. He's not even sure that if the rules are repealed by the Federal Communications Commission that they'll be any company that thinks its a good idea. Big media’s argument for relaxing cross-ownership rules is that the days when broadcast TV and newspapers wholly dominated their markets are dimming. Publishers and broadcasters need scale to compete effectively in an era when cable, digitization and the Internet have vastly increased the number of sources of news and information in a market. But the most important reason that cross-ownership rules no longer make sense is this: the distinctions between print and television are starting to blur in a digital world. Video on the Web is the biggest thing since turkey and gravy. Companies like Tribune have argued that their TV expertise will increasingly lead to more attractive and useful Web sites incorporating video clips alongside articles, and vice versa. Yes, there is too much blandness in big media. Yes, television and newspapers are still the popular providers of local news. And, yes, it’s probably impossible to say that consolidation has succeeded in every case in providing more news “from diverse and antagonistic sources.” But cross-media ownership is neither the solution to the industry’s woes nor the potential bogeyman it might have once appeared. We’re in a different game now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/business/yourmoney/29frenzy.html
(requires registration)